Using the National Science Foundation’s 2006 Science Indicators Survey, this study explores three distinct explanations of public attitudes. First, the knowledge–attitudes model refers to a well tested relationship between public knowledge of science and more favorable attitudes toward science. Second, the alienation model hypothesizes that public disassociation with science is a symptom of a general disenchantment with late modernity, mainly, the limitations associated with codified expertise, rational bureaucracy, and institutional authority. A third approach emphasizes the cultural meaning of science: how various public beliefs about “what science is” relate to acceptance or reservations about science. The Science Indicators Survey shows that US adults view science (what it is or should be) in three distinct ways: 1) in terms of having a systematic method, 2) in terms of social location (i.e., takes place in a university or a laboratory), and 3) in terms of knowledge that should accord with commonsense and tradition. The findings in this study indicate that the knowledge–attitudes, alienation, and cultural meanings models are all valuable for understanding the cultural authority of science. However, the strength of these explanations depends on the type of attitude analyzed.
AllumN.SturgisP.TabouraziD.Brunton-SmithI. (2008) “Science Knowledge and Attitudes across Cultures: A Meta-analysis,” Public Understanding of Science17: 35–54.
2.
BakH. (2001) “Education and Public Attitudes toward Science: Implications for the ‘Deficit Model’ of Education and Support for Science and Technology,” Social Science Quarterly82: 779–95.
3.
BauerM.PetkovaK.BoyadjievaP. (2000) “Public Knowledge of and Attitudes to Science: Alternative Measures that May End the ‘Science War,’” Science, Technology, & Human Values25: 30–51.
4.
BauerM.AllumN.MillerS. (2007) “What Can We Learn from 25 Years of PUS Survey Research? Liberating and Expanding the Agenda,” Public Understanding of Science16: 79–95.
5.
BeckU. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.
6.
BergerP.LuckmannT. (1967) The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday.
7.
BourdieuP. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
CollinsH. M.EvansR. (2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
De SantosM. (2009) “Fact-Totems and the Statistical Imagination: The Public Life of a Statistic in Argentina 2001,” Sociological Theory27: 466–89.
10.
DurantJ.EvansG.ThomasP. (1989) “The Public Understanding of Science,” Nature340: 11–14.
11.
EvansG.DurantJ. (1995) “The Relationship between Knowledge and Attitudes in the Public Understanding of Science in Britain,” Public Understanding of Science3: 57–74.
12.
GauchatG. (2010) “Science Habitus and Science Capital: The Cultural Authority of Science in Everyday Life,” Unpublished manuscript.
13.
GiddensA. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
GierynT. (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
Grove-WhiteR.MacnaghtenP.WynneB. (2000) “Wising Up: The Public and New Technologies.” Lancaster: Lancaster University, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change (CSEC).
16.
HabermasJ. (1989) On Society and Politics: A Reader, ed. SeidmanS.Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
17.
HayesB.TariqV. (2000) “Gender Differences in Scientific Knowledge and Attitudes toward Science: A Comparative Study of Four Anglo-American Nations,” Public Understanding of Science9: 433–47.
18.
HofstadterR. (1970) Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. New York: Random House.
19.
HoltonG. (1993) Science and Anti-Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
InglehartR. (1990) Cultural Shift in Advanced Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
LongJ. S. (1997) Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. London: SAGE.
22.
MertonR. K. (1973a) “Science and the Social Order,” in StorerN. W. (ed.) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, pp. 254–66. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
MertonR. K. (1973b) “Social and Cultural Contexts of Science,” in StorerN. W. (ed.) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, pp. 173–90. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
MichaelM. (2009) “Publics Performing Publics: Of PiGs, PiPs and Politics,” Public Understanding of Science18(5): 617–31.
25.
MillerJ. D. (1983) “Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review,” Daedalus112: 29–48.
26.
MillerJ. D. (1987) “Scientific Literacy in the United States,” in Communicating Science to the Public, pp. 19–40. Chichester: Wiley.
27.
MillerJ. D. (1991) “The Public Understanding of Science and Technology in the U.S.: Report to the U.S. National Science Foundation.” DeKalb, IL: University of Chicago, National Opinion Research Center.
28.
MillerJ. D. (1992) “Towards a Scientific Understanding of the Public Understanding of Science and Technology,” Public Understanding of Science1: 23–30.
29.
MillerJ. D. (1998) “The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy,” Public Understanding of Science7: 203–24.
30.
MillerJ. D. (2004) “Public Understanding of, and Attitudes toward, Scientific Research: What We Know and What We Need to Know,” Public Understanding of Science13: 273–94.
31.
MooneyC. (2009) The Republican War on Science. New York: Basic Books.
32.
MooreK. (2008) Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, 1945–1975. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
National Science Board (2008) Science and Engineering Indicators. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
34.
PardoR.CalvoF. (2002) “Attitudes toward Science among the European Public: A Methodological Analysis,” Public Understanding of Science11(2): 155–95.
35.
Pew Research Center (2009) “Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Scientific Achievements Less Prominent than a Decade Ago,” Pew Research Center. URL (consulted 2 May 2009): http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/528.pdf
36.
PriestS. H. (2001) “Misplaced Faith: Communication Variables as Predictors of Encouragement for Biotechnology Development,” Science Communication23(2): 97–110.
SarisW. E. (2004) “Different Judgment Models for Policy Questions: Competing or Complementary?,” in SarisW. E.SnidermanP. M. (eds) Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, pp. 17–36. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
ShapinS. (2008) “Science and the Modern World,” in HackettE. J.AmsterdamskaO.LynchM.WajcmanJ. (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 433–48. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
SturgisP.AllumN. (2004) “Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes,” Public Understanding of Science13: 55–74.
41.
WeakliemD.BorchC. (2006) “Alienation in the United States: Uniform or Group-Specific Change?,” Sociological Forum21: 415–38.
42.
WynneB. (1991) “Knowledges in Context,” Science, Technology, & Human Values16: 111–21.
43.
WynneB. (1995) “Public Understanding of Science,” in JasanoffS.MarkleG. E.PetersenJ. C.PinchT. (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology, pp. 361–89. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
44.
WynneB. (2001) “Expert Discourses of Risk and Ethics on Genetically Manipulated Organisms: The Weaving of Public Alienation,” Politeia17(62): 51–76.
45.
YearleyS. (2000) “Making Systematic Sense of Public Discontents with Expert Knowledge: Two Analytical Approaches and a Case Study,” Public Understanding of Science9: 105–22.
